Airport Apron Roundabout Operational Concept and Capacity - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

6 th International Conference on Research in Air Transportation Istanbul Technical University, Turkey May 26-30, 2014 Airport Apron Roundabout – Operational Concept and Capacity Evaluation Concept and Capacity Evaluation Bojana Mirkovic, Vojin Tosic Peter Kanzler, Michael Hoehenberger Division of Airports and Air Traffic Safety Apron Control; Operations Planning University of Belgrade - Munich Airport International Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering

Background 29.5.2014 6th ICRAT - Istanbul Technical University, Turkey 2

Background 29.5.2014 6th ICRAT - Istanbul Technical University, Turkey 3

Background 29.5.2014 6th ICRAT - Istanbul Technical University, Turkey 4

Background 29.5.2014 6th ICRAT - Istanbul Technical University, Turkey 5

Background Initially planned conventional intersection Roundabout – preliminary design 29.5.2014 6th ICRAT - Istanbul Technical University, Turkey 6

Background Only lines in use with adopted directions ! 29.5.2014 6th ICRAT - Istanbul Technical University, Turkey 7

Background • 1 st stage in the overall evaluation process – Capacity evaluation • The aim: The aim: to examine the performance of the roundabout in the MUC environment and to compare it to the conventional intersection under the same operating conditions 29.5.2014 6th ICRAT - Istanbul Technical University, Turkey 8

Background • 1 st stage in the overall evaluation process – Capacity evaluation • The aim: The aim: to examine the performance of Roundabout the roundabout in the MUC simulation model environment and to compare it to the Analytical model for conventional intersection under taxiway intersection the same operating conditions capacity estimation 29.5.2014 6th ICRAT - Istanbul Technical University, Turkey 9

Roundabout Operations Model • Exemption from general practice “Visual observations to estimate the respective relative positions” • • Separation – Small a/c: A, B and C; Large a/c: D, E and F (ICAO code letters) – Small a/c: A, B and C; Large a/c: D, E and F (ICAO code letters) – Nose-to-nose separation: • 100m (40+60) if leading a/c is small; • 190m (70+120) if leading a/c is large • General rule for roundabout operations aircraft is allowed to enter the intersection if precisely defined restricted sections are unoccupied by other aircraft. FCFS applies on the entrance! 29.5.2014 6th ICRAT - Istanbul Technical University, Turkey 10

Roundabout Operations Model • Restricted sections: – In front, Behind and Other • Depend on a/c path (entry and exit point) and a/c type Defined for 24 origin/ Defined for 24 origin/ • • destination/a/c type case EXAMPLE: West-North-small a/c 29.5.2014 6th ICRAT - Istanbul Technical University, Turkey 11

Roundabout Operations Model • Restricted sections: – In front, Behind and Other • Depend on a/c path (entry and exit point) and a/c type Defined for 24 origin/ Defined for 24 origin/ • • destination/a/c type case • Boundary points 29.5.2014 6th ICRAT - Istanbul Technical University, Turkey 12

Roundabout Operations Model • Restricted sections: – In front, Behind and Other • Depend on a/c path (entry and exit point) and a/c type Defined for 24 origin/ Defined for 24 origin/ • • destination/a/c type case • Boundary points • Independent paths 29.5.2014 6th ICRAT - Istanbul Technical University, Turkey 13

Roundabout Operations Model Restricted sections and independent paths for all 24 O/D/a/c type cases Roundabout ops model EXAMPLE: West-North-small a/c 29.5.2014 6th ICRAT - Istanbul Technical University, Turkey 14

Roundabout Simulation Model • Simulation model (Flexsim 3.02) – Roundabout operations model – Saturation conditions, FCFS • Input data: – Traffic O/D matrices: outbound and inbound (transposed) peak – Fleet mix: 90/10 and 80/20 share of small/large a/c – Taxiing speed: 20km/h Destination Total S E N W • Scenarios: 1. Outbound 90/10 S - 2.5 42 2.5 47 2. Outbound 80/20 Origin E 2.5 - 8 1 11.5 3. Inbound 90/10 N 25 2.5 - 2.5 30 W 2.5 1 8 - 11.5 4. Inbound 80/20 Total 30 6 58 6 100 29.5.2014 6th ICRAT - Istanbul Technical University, Turkey 15

Roundabout Simulation Model • Simulation results – 100 iterations Scenario 1 40 35 30 30 frequency 25 20 15 10 5 0 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190 195 200 205 210 capacity (aircraft/hour) 29.5.2014 6th ICRAT - Istanbul Technical University, Turkey 16

Roundabout Simulation Model • Simulation results – 100 iterations Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 40 Scen 1 Scen 2 Scen 3 Scen 4 35 30 30 Min 170 149 166 152 frequency 25 Max 204 189 199 190 20 15 Average 186 173 181 170 10 5 Stdev 7.45 7.67 6.71 6.75 0 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190 195 200 205 210 capacity (aircraft/hour) About double the current runway system capacity (90 ops/h) and about 50% higher than the future runway system capacity (120 ops/h)! 29.5.2014 6th ICRAT - Istanbul Technical University, Turkey 17

Roundabout Simulation Model RWY system capacity current: 90 ops/h (2 parallel RWYs) future: 120 ops/h (3 parallel RWYs) Not expected to become capacity issue at MUC apron, under observed traffic scenarios! 29.5.2014 6th ICRAT - Istanbul Technical University, Turkey 18

Roundabout vs. Conventional Apron Crossing 1 λ – taxiway intersection entry capacity λ = - mean inter-entry time for all aircrfat demanding service t t � � i, j - leading and trailing aircraft (described with = = t t t t ij p ij p ij ij 3 characteristics: origin, destination and a/c type) 3 characteristics: origin, destination and a/c type) ij t ij - time interval between the moments two consecutive aircraft (i,j) start entering the intersection p ij - probability of (i,j) pair appearance p = p p ij i j p i - probability of leading aircraft (i) appearance p j - probability of trailing aircraft (j) appearance 29.5.2014 6th ICRAT - Istanbul Technical University, Turkey 19

Roundabout vs. Conventional Apron Crossing • Multiple entries, multiple exits system • Inter-entry times determination for (i,j) pair • Modifficaton with respect to impact of the predecessors to each aircraft pair each aircraft pair • Greatest impact on capacity - “zero” pairs (t ij =0 i.e. aircrfat i and j allowed to enter the intersection simultaneously!) • Additional separation is mainly equal to separation between following aircraft ( j) and ( i,j ) pair predecessor 29.5.2014 6th ICRAT - Istanbul Technical University, Turkey 20

Predecessor – “zero” pair triplet EXAMPLE Predecessor-pair ( ∆ t≠0) N(S) – S(N) – N(S) ∆ t =0 ∆ t =0 Additional separation included in the calculation with the probability of particular triplet appearance. 29.5.2014 6th ICRAT - Istanbul Technical University, Turkey 21

Roundabout vs. Conventional Apron Crossing • Results from analytical model – simplified traffic data: Roundabout Design Conventional Design Intersection Intersection Mean Inter- Mean Inter- Capacity Capacity entry Time (s) entry Time (s) (aircraft/h) (aircraft/h) Scen 1 18.5 194 16.6 217 Scen 2 19.8 182 17.9 201 Scen 3 19.6 184 17.4 207 Scen 4 20.7 174 18.5 195 • Validation: – Simulation results with simplified traffic vs. complete traffic – Simulation results with simplified traffic vs. analytical model results for roundabout 29.5.2014 6th ICRAT - Istanbul Technical University, Turkey 22

Simulation with simplified traffic vs. simulation with complete traffic 29.5.2014 6th ICRAT - Istanbul Technical University, Turkey 23

Roundabout vs. Conventional Apron Crossing • Validation – summary: Simulation – Simulation – Analytical Model – Complete Traffic Simplified Traffic Roundabout (aircraft/h) (aircraft/h) (aircraft/h) Scen 1 186 191 194 Approx. 5 aircraft/h difference – less than 3% Scen 2 173 179 182 Scen 3 181 186 184 Approx. 3 aircraft/h or 1.5% difference Scen 4 170 175 174 • Results from analytical model: Roundabout Conventional Intersection Capacity Intersection Capacity (aircraft/h) (aircraft/h) Scen 1 194 217 Scen 2 182 201 Scen 3 184 207 Scen 4 174 195 The capacity of a conventional intersection is approximately 10% higher! 29.5.2014 6th ICRAT - Istanbul Technical University, Turkey 24

Discussion and conclusion RWY system capacity current: 90 ops/h (2 parallel RWYs) future: 120 ops/h (3 parallel RWYs) In the context of the airport as a whole: under observed local conditions the difference is not significant enough to reject roundabout for further consideration! 29.5.2014 6th ICRAT - Istanbul Technical University, Turkey 25

Discussion and conclusion Fewer merging and crossing points MUC roundabout project in progress… 29.5.2014 6th ICRAT - Istanbul Technical University, Turkey 26

6 th International Conference on Research in Air Transportation Istanbul Technical University, Turkey May 26-30, 2014 Airport Apron Roundabout – Operational Concept and Capacity Evaluation Concept and Capacity Evaluation Bojana Mirkovic, Vojin Tosic Peter Kanzler, Michael Hoehenberger Division of Airports and Air Traffic Safety Apron Control; Operations Planning University of Belgrade - Munich Airport International Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering